Re: Andrew Bollinger and Eve Lauver

May I ask how we know Eva's maiden name or the identity of Eva's parents?Is there a baptismal record? Or a marriage record to Andrew?

The Andrew BOLLINGER in Fulton Co., PA, is a different individual.A check of the 1850 and 1860 censuses of Fulton Co., PA, shows he had wife, Elizabeth, and children William, John, Benjamin, Jacob, and Rebecca, so he's not the Andrew BOLLINGER who married Eva.That's the easy part...

Andrew and Eva were in the 1850 and 1860 censuses of Stark Co., OH, then the 1870 and 1880 censuses of Marshall Co., IN.The 1850 census record is difficult to interpret; that is, I don't know how much to attribute to enumerator error.One thing is clear.Living with them in 1850 are three apparent orphans surnamed NOGGLE, namely, Sylvanus (age 11), Mary (age 7), and Elizabeth (age 2).These three are still living with them in 1860, only now they are surnamed BOLLINGER.In 1870 and 1880, Sylvanus has disappeared, but Mary Jane and Elizabeth continue to live with Andrew & Eva and continue to be surnamed BOLLINGER.That these two girls were apparently adopted also solves the problem that Eva was too old to be their mother.That's the clear part...

The confusing part of the 1850 census record is that Eva is listed first and is surnamed MATHUS?/MATHIES? (can't read clearly).She is followed by Charlotte (18), George (16), and Andrew (14), with dittos indicating their surname is also MATHUS(?).Then comes "A. BOLLINGER" (50), followed by the three NOGGLE children.Daughter, Catharine, is married and also living in Stark County, with her husband, Joseph STROUP.It appears from this record that Eva had a prior marriage and that her four children are not Andrew's, but her first husband's.

But I also wonder if the enumerator hasn't just totally blundered.I can only urge that you check the census page for yourself and see why the record is so questionable.They're in Perry Twp., Stark Co., OH, on Roll M432-731, pp. 210B-211A.Eva's surname is carried over from the prior household with a ditto mark, and I wonder if it was done deliberately or mistakenly.And I wonder if Andrew being listed after the children was deliberately intended to indicate they weren't married, or whether this is another error.Needless to say, it's genealogically important to know which, hence my question as to whether we actually have a marriage record for Eva and Andrew.If we don't, they may have married much later than we thought.

What I have, including the census record extractions, is online in the form of a family group sheet on my web site: